The Development of Language for Implementing IT Within a
Learning Organisation
Adrian Small and Petia Sice
University Of Northumbria, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK
adrian.small@unn.ac.uk
petia.sice@unn.ac.uk
Abstract: This paper explores the role that language can play in the development of technologies or other
processes within an organisation. Examples and lessons from the literature of the learning organisation are
looked as a key in the development of language. The paper uses a practical example of a customer complaints
management system to demonstrate how the theoretical insights discussed in this paper can be put into practice.
Finally the authors propose that a common organisational language can be developed. Then the design and use
of IT for learning within organisations can be achieved.
Keywords: The Learning Organisation, Language, Information Technology, Systems Development, Soft Systems
Methodology, Customer Complaints Management.

1. Introduction
The learning organisation implies being able to
learn within complex structures (Appelbaum
and Gallagher, 2000) as well as alter routines
that mental and structural forces (Senge,
1990) place upon an organisation. This paper
acknowledges the difficulty in this area and
briefly discusses the terms that have been
used interchangeably throughout the literature.
The main contributors to the area of the
learning organisation and organisational
learning, such as Argyris and Schön (1978),
offer only one perspective while others such as
Senge (1990) and Pedler, Burgoyne and
Boydell (1997) offer alternatives. Therefore, for
organisations
to
implement
learning
technologies many perspectives must be
examined. The paper then explores the role of
language and how language can play a role in
the learning organisation.
Appelbaum and Gallagher (2000) note the
increase in an organisations change in
structure to meet the current demands of
business. The resulting changes, driven by
information technology and involved schemes
such as business process re-engineering
(BPR) (Hammer and Champy, 1993), resulted
in downsizing and the loss of individuals who
possessed valuable knowledge. If these
individuals can place their knowledge in the
technological domain and recreate and
develop new forms of knowledge then
organisations may find they can become more
innovative and competitive than relying on just
the ‘T’ factor of information technology. For this
to be achieved, more emphasis has to be
placed in systems thinking and the use of
language. Thus, if organisations fail to address
the individual, the organisation and the
technology
equally
in
their
systemic

http://www.ejel.org

interrelationship, they may find little value in
pursuing learning technologies for developing
a learning organisation. A case study is used
to show how the theoretical debates discussed
in this paper can apply in practice. Finally
conclusions are drawn from the case study.

2. The learning organisation and
the role of language
The survival instinct of an organisation usually
takes the form of profit generation even though
not all organisations’ prime motive for existing
is to make a profit. However, the organisations
that do look to make a profit can view learning
as a way to enhance their competitiveness.
Garvin (1993) concurs as he feels, that to
continuously improve, organisations need to
commit to learning as a lack of learning
increases the chances of copying old practices
that may not be suitable in the current
environment. Viewing the world differently may
present new opportunities for individuals within
organisations to increase the competences of
the organisation. This may result in a more
efficient performance compared to competitors.
As the world becomes more complex the
aspect of certainty becomes distant so learning
has been changed to respond to the changing
environment (Choueke and Armstrong, 1998;
Garratt, 1999; Lee and Bennett, 2000). It is not
a simple matter for individuals to decide to
adopt the philosophy of a learning
organisation. The main factor in developing a
learning organisation comes from the culture,
which allows the learning to take place
(O’Keeffe and Harrington, 2001). Here lies the
first problem, as all individuals who share a
culture understand what the underlying values
of the culture entail. Therefore, all individuals
who are to participate in a culture of learning

The simplest definition of the learning
organisation can be described as “one that
facilitates the learning of all its members and
continually transforms itself” (O’Keeffe and
Harington, 2001 p137). The main problem with
the research about the learning organisation is
that a precise definition has not been agreed
upon. What is agreed is that the terms ‘the
learning organisation’ and ‘organisational
learning’ is not the same thing (Reynolds and
Ablett, 1998). Organisational learning can be
described to be taking place where the
behaviour of individuals is changed (Reynolds
and Ablett, 1998). Reynolds and Ablett’s
(1998) view of the learning organisation are an
organisation in which once learning has taken
place, a change in the organisation occurs.
The previous statement on the description of a
learning organisation is similar to the opening
quote of this paragraph, from O’Keeffe and
Harington (2001).
The focus so far has been on defining a
learning organisation but we now turn our
attention to how individuals use language to
interact with each other and add meaning to
their view of the world. The role of language
mainly focuses on the work of Maturana and
Varela (1980, 1987) and Bohm (1999). Our
attention is then turned to the use of language
within the learning organisation.

2.1

An alternative conceptual
perspective on the role of human
language

The traditional view of cognition and language
is based on the metaphor of inside - outside.
The outside, or real world, is considered to be
the source of information, and the inside, or
the brain, is considered to be an intelligent
processor of this information, with the mind
embedded within it. In this metaphor our
observations are merely representations of the
outside that are thought to represent the truth
and the brain, and the mind within, is the
machine that works on these observations to
extract knowledge. Mingers (1989) states that
a large proportion of the cognitive science is
based on the assumption that the human mind
works
by
“manipulating
objective
representations of the environment”. Language
is therefore used to describe an objective
world. Words stand for real things that exist as
a true reality independent of the individual
observer.

http://www.ejel.org

218

In contrast, more modern views of cognition
such as those of enactive cognitive science
and autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1980)
have moved away from this distinction
between inside and outside. Cognition is
conditional to embodiment and the ability of an
individual to differentiate is thought to be a
consequence of that individual’s specific
structure. Thus, the act of cognition is a matter
of interacting with the world in the capacity in
which one is able to interact, and not simply an
act of processing what is objectively to be
‘seen’.
However, since our distinctions are generated
through our interactions, then the content of
our knowledge is not simply a mapping of
reality, but our way of living and understanding
it. The knower is the ultimate point of
reference. We apply divisions and distinctions
in our thinking about the world. However, this
fragmentation does not have an absolutely
objective existence, as our distinctions are
epistemological qualities not ‘true’ realities.
As humans we exist in language. However,
language should not be regarded as a system
of symbols that are composed into patterns
that stand for things in the world (Bohm, 1999).
Language did not evolve just to take in an
outside world. Therefore, it cannot simply be
viewed as a tool to reveal that world.
Language is a venue for action, coupling the
cognitive domains of two or more actors
(Maturana and Varela, 1987). Therefore, it is
often preferential to discuss languaging as an
act rather than language as a symbolic
notation.
Social systems exist for their members within
the operational coherence of languaging
together: ‘Human agreements decide what is
true and what is false. It is what human beings
say that is true and false; and they agree in the
language they use. That is not agreement in
opinions but in a form of life’ (Wittgenstein,
1967).

219
language even though they can communicate
together. Here may lay a problem with the
understanding of the learning organisation.
Senge (1990) concurs as he feels that every
individual must share the same viewpoint of
the system under discussion.
The discussion of Argyris (1999) on logical
paradoxes can be used as an example of the
problems of language and attaching meaning
to that language. A logical paradox can be
described as a contradiction embedded in the
actions that are communicated (Argyris, 1999).
Argyris (1999 p92) uses the example of a
statement that reads, “I am lying” which can be
taken as true. Argyris (1999) then points out
that if the statement is true then no ‘lying’ has
taken place and the statement becomes false
(Argyris, 1999). The main reason paradoxes
like the example just given occur is due to the
fact that individuals create meanings that are
inconsistent, but have disguised the fact that
they are doing so (Argyris, 1999). If these
paradoxes are occurring within organisations
then the same language is not being shared
either through design or through other factors.
Therefore, this use of language has to be
understood and shared for a learning
organisation, at least in the minds of the
individuals of the organisation, to be brought
into existence.
Krippendorff (1995) discusses the features of
design and notes that designers are more
concerned with the end product than on how
the idea for the product occurred through the
communication
mediums
of
speaking,
presenting and disagreeing. It may be
theorised that Krippendorff (1995) was
specifically talking about the design of physical
products that are sold to a consumer.
However, this issue can also be applied to the
design of an organisation and the design and
use of information technology. The focus is
mainly upon the end in itself, for example, how
a newly designed organisation will better
function or what benefits a new information
technology system will bring.
Little attention is focussed upon the
discussions on how about firstly a newly
designed
organisation
or
information
technology system came into the discourse of
all individuals involved and secondly, how this
discourse evolved to create the new
organisational form or information technology
system that is now in place. Krippendorff
p138)
states
“Notwithstanding
(1995,
dictionary definitions, I see discourse as a
particular way of languaging, as a social

http://www.ejel.org

Adrian Small & Petia Sice
phenomenon with a life of its own”. From the
definition on discourse, through Krippendorff
(1995), a learning organisation therefore must
develop a discourse that is given a life that all
individuals can develop together which
becomes embedded in the culture of the
organisation.

3. Information technologies in
learning organisations
Lee and Bennett (2000) feel that through the
impact
of
globalisation,
organisational
restructuring and information technology has
forced organisations to learn to operate in new
ways. It may be thought that these new
technologies are being implemented as a
solution to the ever-increasing pressures of
globalisation. However, Mingers (1989) feels
that the environment is not responsible for
changes to an organisation (such as the
requirement of new technologies) but may
select specific states that are offered by an
organisation’s structure. If the organisation has
developed the right technologies and uses
them in an appropriate manner, the
organisation will be able to interact more
successfully with the current environment
compared to its competitors. Therefore, the
rapid development of new information and
communication technologies (ICTs) are playing
a role as the infrastructure that is creating
networks and providing an opportunity for
organisations to learn (Pemberton and
Stonehouse, 2000) to interface with the
environment. These technologies may provide
the raw data that individuals may require but it
is up to the individuals themselves to analyse
the data. Analysis can be described as having
three
dimensions:
namely
synthesis,
hypothesis and implication (Westney and
Ghoshal, 1994). The synthesis dimension can
be described as assembling data to make a
complete picture (Westney and Ghoshal,
1994). Hypothesis refers to using the data to
create ‘what if’ scenarios, while the implication
dimension refers to future and possible actions
of competitors (Westney and Ghoshal, 1994).
From the analysis of the data it then has to be
communicated throughout the organisation.
Technologies such as software packages, the
management of documents, e-mail and
intranets are just some examples of tools
organisations may employ to enhance learning
(Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000) and
communicate data. However, allowing all
individuals to have access to the data that
flows through these technologies may not
provide the required learning. Henderson

Electronic Journal on e-Learning Volume 2 Issue 1 (February 2004) 217-226
(1997) notes that deciding what may be
classed as true is very difficult for individuals
but is exceedingly more difficult for groups
such as an organisation. The individuals may
observe and interpret the same data differently
(Henderson, 1997). Therefore, an organisation
focusing upon the technological factors to
create a learning organisation will find
disappointing results as all members may
interpret the same information differently.
Technology allows the capture and placement
of data into another context (Zuboff, 1988). If
the organisation does not have a shared
language then the data may just remain as
data that has been transformed from one state
to another, with no function for learning to take
place. Thus, the traditionally established
metaphor of ‘the transmission of information’,
in which communication represents something,
which is generated at a certain point and
carried through an information channel, or
conduit, and delivered to a receiver, is
misleading. It presupposes that what happens
to the receiver (listener) is predetermined by
the perturbing agent, not by the structure of the
receiving entity, while the phenomenon of
communication depends not only on what is
transmitted, but what happens to the person
who receives it. Communication, therefore, is a
matter of mutual orientation, primarily with
respect to each other’s behaviour, and
secondarily with respect to some subject.
(Whitaker, 1996). Language as we have
argued is a venue for action, a way of life
(Wittgenstein, 1967) and not a means for
transmitting information
The understanding of language as a place for
action presupposes that a language has to be
developed prior to the technology, that is to
say language has to emerge in the
conversation for action. Through the
applications of hardware and software the
language of the organisation can be
institutionalised to suit the organisation’s
requirements. While institutionalisation is
important, it has to go hand in hand with the
possibility for further developing the language
and thus the institutionalised practices. In an
attempt to understand the problems discussed
in this paper, a practical project presented itself
within a manufacturing organisation. The
organisation is trying to develop a customer
complaints management (CCM) system to
manage complaints the organisation receives.
The initial and current development of this
project is where our attention is now turned.

http://www.ejel.org

220

4. The development of a Customer
Complaints Management (CCM)
system
Throughout this paper an emphasis has been
placed firstly on the statement that language
must be developed before any technology and
secondly, through the use of information
technology organisations have to learn how to
operate in new ways. Therefore, we have
stated that for organisations to implement and
use learning technologies the use of language
must be developed between individuals. Both
the authors of this paper are half way through
working on a customer complaints (CCM)
project, within a manufacturing organisation.
The organisation is hoping to use a technology
solution to record, manage and solve its
customer complaints. A presentation from a
leading technology company has already taken
place. The customer service department is
currently responsible for handling customer
complaints but the planned system is being
designed so that any individual who receives a
complaint can input the problem into the
technology.
The need for a system to handle customer
complaints was highlighted through the
company’s annual International Organisation
for Standardisation (ISO) audit. An element of
the ISO accreditation requires a system to
record and handle complaints; this is currently
not in place. Through the findings of the ISO
audit
the
senior
management
have
empowered a team to tackle the problem.
An initial brainstorming meeting was held
where the first author attended to get a better
insight as the current thinking and direction the
project might take. Initial discussions on the
various software packages that might be
suitable were discussed and a brief bullet list
on what constitutes a customer complaint was
drawn up. However, it is noted that momentum
for the project had not gathered pace and was
still waiting to develop. It was at this point that
the first author asked to join the project team
with the initial emphasis on exploring the use
of language to develop what can be classed as
a learning technology. The project consists of
individuals from customer services, workshop,
repair shop, shipping, planning, and technical
support departments.

use to develop the technology it is important to
reflect on the guiding methodology that is
currently used. Checkland and Scholes (1990)
soft systems methodology (SSM) is looked at,
by the authors, as a methodology that is
rigorous and flexible enough to allow the type
of data that would be suitable to develop a
shared language, as well as help in the
development of a suitable technology.
However, it should be noted that the
methodology has been applied but each of the

stages Checkland and Scholes (1990)
advocated have been further developed to
encompass the creation of dialogue and the
development of a shared language. It is not
feasible to go into greater detail about what the
soft systems methodology contains, but
information can be found through Checkland
and Scholes (1990) or online Couprie et al (no
date). Figure 1 shows a diagrammatical
representation of the further developed SSM
methodology used by the authors of this paper.

Learning Taken Forward
1. The problem situation: Unstructured
May or may not be a problem.
Adapting to change.
Culture of organisation to allowarea to be explored.
Basic dialogue no development of language.

7. Action to improve problemsituation. .
What people decide.
Action comes out in languaging together.

2. The problem situation: expressed
Aneed to adapt to problemhence environmental
change.
Dialogue needs to be focussed upon the problem.
Start of action research process.

3. Root definitions of relevant systems .
Use of shared language developed to discuss problem.
Various solutions presented.
The use of co-operative inquiry.

6. Feasible,
Desirable change s.
Theoretical assumption brought up in the
conceptual model is an insight.
People have to language together to
understand the intervention.
Has to be justified.

5. Comparison of 4 with 2.
Important to focus upon the conceptual model
designed.
Understand the monitoring procedures
The language developed can be shared.

Real World

4. Conceptual Models .
The use of theories that are used in the
learning organisation.
Systemic perspectives.
More focus on the activities being
designed.
The use of models to support learning..

4a. Formal
System
concept

Systems
Thinking

4b. Other
System
Thinking

Figure 1: The Further developed SSM methodology Adapted From Checkland And Scholes (1990)
The SSM methodology contains a seven-stage
process. It should be noted that the bold type
displayed in figure one is Checkland and
Scholes (1990) original stages of SSM. The
authors feel by developing the methodology to
encompass the stages as they are displayed in
figure one will provide a learning environment
to develop solutions to problems that the

http://www.ejel.org

organisation may face. Checkland and Scholes
(1990) explanation of the SSM approach
seems to be mainly practitioner led. The SSM
methodology displayed in figure one has tried
to remove this emphasis and place it in an
increased joint collaboration between all
participants (including researchers). Therefore,
the use of co-operative inquiry (see Heron and

ÂŠAcademic Conferences Limited

Electronic Journal on e-Learning Volume 2 Issue 1 (February 2004) 217-226
Reason, 2001) is looked at as a technique to
allow this collaboration to happen jointly. At
present stages one and two have been
completed.

4.2

Initial approach

As has been mentioned, the project is only half
way completed. This section will therefore
discuss what was developed initially while the
next section (current research progress) will go
into more detail on how the data has been
collected so far. Using the SSM approach
stage one the problem situation unstructured
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990) emerged from
the ISO audit and the initial discussions and
debates that the team held. It should be noted
at this point that the methodology was not
brought to the project team’s attention. It was
felt that more work should be completed to
prove to the team the commitment the first
author had to the project. Secondly, it was felt
that bringing in techniques from academia, so
early, might deter some of the team members
from finding value in the approach. It can be
summarised that this stage of the methodology

222

(stage one) occurred through a two-week
ethnographic study that took place from the 4
August until the 15 August 2003. The main
purpose of the ethnographic study was to gain
a better understanding of how the organisation
worked from written to unwritten rules and any
power relations that might exist as well as
collect documentation.

4.3

Current research

At present the research has just finished stage
two of the SSM methodology, the problem
situation expressed. It was through this stage
of the methodology that the methods and
techniques that were used helped to develop a
shared language. To help the team express
the problem situation a technique called the
appreciative inquiry method (AIM) (West,
1995) (for a more detailed description see
Troxel, 2002) was firstly conducted. Two
sheets that had the statements “What is a
customer complaint?” and “Reasons for
handling a customer complaint” were handed
to each participant in the format shown in
figure 2.

What is a customer
complaint?

Figure 2: The Appreciative Inquiry Method Adapted From West (1995)
Each participant was given both statements
and had to identify what they felt could explain
‘what a customer complaint was’ and ‘the
reasons for handling a customer complaint’.
Anything a participant thought of was written
on the sheet stemming from the initial
statement. Categories that are similar could be
grouped together. The purpose of this
technique is to get each individual’s
perspective on the problem area. The
statements are designed to be open so that
each
individual’s
personal
and
work
experiences could be captured in a different
format than an interview or open discussion

http://www.ejel.org

could. The data that was collected from this
stage fed into the next stage of the data
collection method, which were the semistructured interviews.
Each interview was conducted by the first
author through his interpretation of the problem
area as well as the statements received from
the AIM work sheets. Each interview was
designed to allow enough flexibility so that
each participant could interpret the question
any way they felt. However, it must be
mentioned the questions were not so totally
vague that participants had to ask for clarity.

223
Each interview lasted between 20 – 45
minutes. The interviews took two weeks to
conduct with two interviews commencing each
day. The interviews were transcribed and
analysed by the first author. From the analysis

Adrian Small & Petia Sice
of each interview a ‘rich picture’ (figure 3 is an
example) was constructed (see Checkland and
Scholes, 1990 or Ryan, 2001 for a quick
description).

Figure 3: A rich picture from the research project
All interviews were kept anonymous, were not
placed in order the interviews were conducted,
and were referred to only by a number. A brief
summary accompanied each rich picture along
with both AIM work sheets that had all of the
participants’ statements grouped accordingly.
The interviews and the AIM worksheets were
then placed into a document and were then fed
back to the participants. The initial reaction to
the work was good with one participant stating,
“This is more comprehensive then we could
have achieved” (researcher’s diary November,
2003). It was emphasised that the document is
designed to be a discussion tool. It is hoped
that participants can look at each picture in
dialogue with other team members about
whether they agree or disagree with the view.
The dialogue that will be created can then be
the start of a shared language, which will be
used to develop the appropriate technologies.

http://www.ejel.org

5. Future work and discussion
This paper has tried to give as much detail as
possible on a project to develop a customer
complaint management system within a
manufacturing organisation. The project is just
one aspect of the first author’s PhD work,
which is looking at learning technologies within
learning organisations. It can be argued that
the techniques used to try and create a shared
language have problems due to the first author
designing, conducting and analysing the
interviews. The outcome of this research can
be argued to be the first author’s interpretation
of events that have taken place (c.f. Kemmis,
2001). The authors acknowledge this problem.
In answer to this problem the work produced is
not designed to be a definitive guide as to how
the project is to move forward. The document
was designed to be used for a discussion tool.

Electronic Journal on e-Learning Volume 2 Issue 1 (February 2004) 217-226
Future plans include encouraging each
participant to present their own rich picture to
the group. If an individual feels strongly that a
picture does not reflect what that individual
believes then they can present their own view.
This was another reason why each picture was
kept anonymous so more focus could placed
on what the picture was trying to communicate
rather than who said what.
The future direction of the project remains to
be discussed. The conclusion of the project
has been announced as April 2004. Therefore,
it leaves the project team just under three
months. Up until this point the project has
mainly been researcher led. It is envisioned
the second phase of the project will be where
all participants (including the researcher) will
take the project forward together and not
consider the researcher as the project leader.
The outcome of the project will provide an
insight into how a co-operative approach (see
Heron and Reason, 2001) to implementing
technology, as well as a focus upon the
language developed, can be of value to an
organisation when compared to other
methods. It is felt that the work that has been
undertaken so far is valuable to both the
organisation involved and to the authors of this
paper. However, only when the project has
been completed can the true lessons be
reflected upon.

6. Conclusion
This paper opened with a discussion on the
learning organisation and the role of language.
The paper has identified that the role of
language has been under- researched. It has
been argued that language, as stated by such
authors as Krippendorff (1995, 1996, 1997)
and Whitaker (1996), is very important in
creating a learning capability. Language is
viewed as the meaning we create to our worlds
and as a venue for action (Maturana and
Varela, 1987). Language is used to co-ordinate
activities within an organisation but is also
used to create a shared view of the same
system (Senge, 1990). It is the difference in
viewing the system as the same through the
use of language, which is causing logical
paradoxes that create inconsistent meanings
(Argyris, 1999). When individuals share
inconsistent meanings of a problem and then
come together to try and solve the problem,
the outcomes that are not expected occur.
As technology is being implemented to solve
business needs it is vital that a shared
language is developed before any technology
is implemented. In order to explore these

http://www.ejel.org

224

problems the authors have expanded the soft
systems methodology (SSM) as developed by
Checkland and Scholes (1990). It is hoped that
the methodology, as espoused by the authors
of this paper, that the issues of language and
the development of a learning environment can
be created and used as a way to tackle
problems an organisation may face. The
practical case of a customer complaint
management system has been used to
demonstrate how the ideas discussed in this
paper can relate in practice. At current the
project has reached the halfway point (or stage
two of the methodology).
The authors believe that unlike technology
artefacts individuals speak to each other and
construct themselves in language, which is
continually changing (Krippendorff, 1996). If
this language is not developed together the
use of technology to solve problems can only
cloud the issues that are attempted to be
solved.